Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was

It certainly makes good sense to illuminate the psychological and sociological structure of processes in the history of theology. But Theissen’s overall description can only lead ordinary readers to a serious misunderstanding. Or is he really convinced that Jesus was simply a charismatic, a prophet, a healer, a poet, a teacher, a founder of a cult, and a martyr,¹³ and that early Christology was a “deification” theologically as well?

This should make it clear, once again, why this chapter had to treat Jesus’ sovereign claim so extensively. Everything depends, after all, on the question of the claim Jesus himself advanced and what the eyewitnesses at the time observed him to be. At a later time, 1 John 1:1 reflects what a profound and fundamental experience this represented: “We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the logos of life.”

The Fundamental Experience of the First Witnesses

But in what did that experience consist? What was it that the first witnesses saw and heard? It makes sense at this point to summarize briefly what we already said in chapter 19.

Jesus spoke as one who stood in the place of God. Jesus did not speak like a prophet who hands on a word received from God. Nor did he speak like a precursor who points to one greater who is coming after him but instead as one who speaks with sovereign authority. We may remember especially the very frequent authoritative “I” in Jesus’ words, and also his cries of woe over the cities that rejected him. Judgment will be measured by a decision for or against him.

Jesus acted like one who stands in God’s stead. According to the theology of Ezekiel, God himself will gather his people (Ezek 36:24). Jesus began the gathering of Israel by authoritatively, in a symbolic act, installing and sending forth twelve men as representatives of eschatological Israel. According to the theology of the book of Isaiah, in the now-dawning time of salvation God will heal his people (Isa 57:18-19), bind up their wounds (30:26); then no one in Israel will again say, “I am sick” (33:24). The whole people will see what the hand of God is accomplishing in their midst (29:23). Jesus’ appearance was accompanied from the very beginning by healing miracles. He cured the blind, the lame, the lepers, and the possessed among the people of God. In Mark 2:7 the scribes quite correctly ask, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But evidently Jesus assured people that their sins were forgiven (cf. Mark 2:5; Luke 7:47), and in consequence he entered into community with sinners (Mark 2:13-17; Luke 19:1-10). Here again he acts as if he stood in the place of God.

But for all this we should finally consider that Jesus spoke and acted not only as someone who stood in God’s stead. He acted eschatologically, that is, conclusively. This end-time-conclusive or eschatological character is evident especially in the claim that the decision about his own person would become salvation or judgment for those who decide. We may refer once more to Luke 12:8-9: “And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God.” Jesus’ disciples and the first witnesses heard this claim; they saw, and they internalized it. It was their fundamental experience of Jesus. The church has preserved that fundamental experience, protected it against misinterpretation, and in the process has plumbed and reflected on it more and more deeply. It is true that in subsequent centuries this was done also with the aid of Greek concepts, but the church used those concepts precisely in order to hold fast to the confession of the first witnesses.¹⁴

The Dilemma

In closing, let me once again clarify the point at issue. The question was: was the Christology of the first communities and the early church based on a sovereign claim by Jesus himself? Or is this Christology pure ideology, that is, was it placed like a golden cloak over the real Jesus after Easter?

Historical criticism here stands before a parting of the ways that may lead in very different directions. If it posits that the biblical God exists, acts in the world, and does so through human beings, it also posits that there could be a pure “present,” a presence in the world—perhaps even to an extent that is unimaginable and absolutely unheard of—and then it can at least accept Jesus’ claim as a claim and not attempt to use historical criticism to weaken it or eliminate it entirely.